Startseite On the right of being a comparative concept
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

On the right of being a comparative concept

  • Yury Lander EMAIL logo und Peter Arkadiev
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 27. September 2016

Abstract

We provide a critical review of the distinction between “comparative concepts” and “descriptive categories”, showing that in current typological practice the former are usually dependent on the latter and are often vague, being organized around prototypes rather than having sharp boundaries. We also propose a classification of comparative concepts, arguing that their definitions can be based on similarities between languages or on differences between languages or can also be “blind” to language-particular facts. We conclude that, first, comparative concepts and descriptive categories are ontologically not as distinct as some typologists would like to have it, and, second, that attempts at a “non-aprioristic” approach to linguistic description and language typology are more of an illusion than reality or even a desideratum.

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Betsch, Anna Dybo, Maxim Fedotov, Dmitry Gerasimov, Martin Haspelmath, Maria Kholodilova, Tetiana Liubchenko, Tanja Mortelmans, Sorin Paliga, Benjamin Saade, Hedwig Skirgård, Nathan W. Hill, and Fernando Zúñiga for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Frans Plank for encouragement to write it. None of these colleagues is responsible for the views expressed here. This material is partly based upon work supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant No. 14-18-03270.

Abbreviations

3

3rd person

abs

absolutive

ben

benefactive

caus

causative

dir

directive

dyn

dynamicity

erg

ergative

io

indirect object

loc

locative applicative

obl

oblique

pl

plural

poss

possessive

pst

past

rel

relative

sg

singular.

References

Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edn.), Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.004Suche in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Brody, Jill. 1984. Some problems with the concept of basic word order. Linguistics 22. 711–736.10.1515/ling.1984.22.5.711Suche in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103.10.1075/sl.13.1.03bybSuche in Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Typological studies: Word order and relative clauses. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Davies, William D. & Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755693Suche in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611896Suche in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2003. Word: A typological framework. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486241Suche in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Functionalism and the theory–metalanguage confusion. In Grace Wiebe et al. (eds.), Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing, 27–59. Taipei: Crane.Suche in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of adjective and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie.http://wals.info/chapter/87 (accessed on 21 March 2016)Suche in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas D. 2010. Semantic typology. In Song (ed.) 2010, 504–533.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0024Suche in Google Scholar

Ewert, Alfred. 1940. Dante’s theory of language. The Modern Language Review 35. 355–366.10.2307/3716632Suche in Google Scholar

Falk, Yehuda N. 2006. Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486265Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2, 211–243. New York: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 375–402. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0014Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687.10.1353/lan.2010.0021Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45. 31–80.10.1515/flin.2011.002Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Comparative syntax. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 490–508. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315796604-36Suche in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Jaggar, Philip J. 1998. Restrictive vs non-restrictive relative clauses in Hausa: Where morphosyntax and semantics meet. Studies in African Linguistics 27. 199–238.10.32473/sal.v27i2.107383Suche in Google Scholar

Jaggar, Philip J. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/loall.7Suche in Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘Subject’. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Lander, Yury & Natalia Tyshkevich. 2015. True, liminal and fake prototypes in syntactic typology. In Ekaterina Lyutikova et al. (eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov, Vol. 2, 185–199. Moskva: Moskovskij pedagogičeskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.Suche in Google Scholar

LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. On describing word order. In Felix Ameka et al. (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Suche in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej L. 2000. Dependency reversal in Noun-Attribute constructions: Towards a typology. München: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 281–328. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.11.14mitSuche in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In William Shipley (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American linguistics, 557–609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852387.557Suche in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Raible, Wolfgang. 2001. Language universals and language typology. In Martin Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, Vol. 1, 1–24. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110171549.2Suche in Google Scholar

Ross, Malcolm. 1998. Possessive-like attribute constructions in the Oceanic languages of Northwest Melanesia. Oceanic Linguistics 37. 234–276.10.2307/3623410Suche in Google Scholar

Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2009. Towards the typology of raising: A functional approach. In Alexander Arkhipov & Patience Epps (eds.), New challenges for typology: Transcending the borders and redefining the distinctions, 245–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 1994. Word order and linearization. In R. E. Asher et al. (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 9, 4993–4999. Oxford: Pergamon.Suche in Google Scholar

Song, Jae Jung (ed.). 2010. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 2010. The problem of cross-linguistic identification. In Song (ed.) 2010, 90–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0006Suche in Google Scholar

Tolstoj, Nikita Il’jič. 1968. Nekotorye problemy sravnitel’noj slavjanskoj semasiologii [Some problems of comparative Slavic semasiology]. In Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: VI Meždunarodnyj s”jezd slavistov (Praga, avgust 1968 g.): Doklady sovetskoj delegacii, 339–365. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Suche in Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan & Volker Gast. 2010. Categories and prototypes. In Song (ed.) 2010, 166–189.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0010Suche in Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79Suche in Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2015. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47. 136–173.10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636Suche in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Semantic primes and linguistic typology. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and empirical findings, Vol. 2, 257–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.61.10wieSuche in Google Scholar

Xolodilova, Marija A. 2015. Soglasovanie s veršinoj otnositel’nyx konstrukcij i obosoblennyx imennyx oborotov v russkom jazyke [Agreement with the head of relative clauses and detached noun phrases in Russian]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 2(30). 74–97.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-3-22
Revised: 2016-7-2
Published Online: 2016-9-27
Published in Print: 2016-10-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Heruntergeladen am 2.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2016-0014/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen